RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has arisen in the following circumstances. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, at about 1. 30 p. m. on 3. 11. 1980 near vegetable market of Amul Dairy Road in the city of Anand, while one Shantilal Jorabhai Patel whose heirs and legal representatives have filed the present petition, was travelling in S. T. Bus from navli to Anand, when bus stopped near Vegetable Market Stand at Anand, said Shantilal stepped down from the bus and at that time, one bag (gunny bag) full with material, fell on the head and as a result of injuries sustained on account of said accident, the injured ultimately died on 17. 12. 1980. A claim before the Mdtor Accident Claims Tribunal was filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal, while recording its conclusion that death was due to falling of gunny bag on the head of the deceased and this mishape was not attributed to the driver of the Bus. held that there cannot be any negligence on the part of the driver who was in the charge of the bus and that mishape is attributed to the negligence of the conductor of the bus. Further, relying on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Jaya Gauri, wd/o Himmatlal Shivlal vs. Sanjay guru, in Appeal From Order No. 316 of 1977 (17 GLT 1980 P. 88) decided on 31. 1. 1980, held that it was accident not arising out of "use of motor vehicle" but a case of negligence of the conductor in handling the goods of the passengers and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and the applicants remedy would be by way of a regular civil suit for claiming damages arising out of negligence of a person handling the goods. ( 3 ) IT was straneously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the words used in sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as it was in force at the relevant time and now under sec. ( 3 ) IT was straneously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the words used in sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as it was in force at the relevant time and now under sec. 165 of the M. V. Act, 1988 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, are very vide and cannot be confined to the accident when actually caused by a motor vehicle in motion or when motor vehicle is involved itself. If the circumstances contained are taken into consideration, the evidence in question must be deemed to arise out of use. of vehicle. At any rate, the learned counsel contends, the view taken by this court in Jaya Courts case requires reconsideration. 3. 1. After careful consideration of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering phraseology used by the legislature, I am unable to agree. It is true that special provision made in regard to the expeditious adjudication of compensation claim arising out of motor accident ought not to be interpreted in narrow sense. However, it must mean for adjudication of claims arising out of motor accidents because of negligent use of the motor vehicles as such and cannot be extended beyond the scope of the section so as to include within its purview the action in respect of the acts which are not directly related to the use of motor vehicle, but to any other negligent act of a person concern giving rise to a liability under the action for tort. It is only in respect of the acts of negligence of user of motor vehicle as motor vehicle and claims for compensation arising out of accidents from such user can be entertained by the Tribunal, but where alleged accident does not relate the use of motor vehicle as such in any manner, but arising out of negligence performance of duty by other person, the same cannot be attributed to user of the motor vehicle simply because it is connected with the motor vehicle concerned. ( 4 ) IT may be noticed that in the case of Jaya Gauri (Supra), it was a case in which the accident was alleged to have occured due to negligence of cleaner of the tanker in handling the pipe through which the liquid was being carried from the tanker to the barrel that the fire broke out and the death of the deceased occured. It was obviously mishandling of pipe used in transferring liquid from one vehicle to another, and was obviously not activity connected with the use of vehicle as such, but was activity connected with handling of goods carefully so as not to resulting into fire. That is the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Jaya Gauri (Supra) wherein the Court held as under:"uader section 110 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the material words are "arising out of the use of motor vehicle", that is, the incident must have arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle. In the instant case, from the facts, it is obvious that the death was due to the fire and the fire was due to the negligence or alleged negligence of the cleaner of the tanker in which Crude Oil or inflamable Oil was being carried. It was not the case of the use of the motor vehicle but the case of negligence of the cleaner in handling the pipe through which the liquid was being carried from the tanker to the barrel that the fire broke out and the death of the deceased occured. Hence, the view which was taken by the learned Tribunal, namely, that in view of the language of the section and in view of the facts of this case, it had no jurisdiction to try the claim petition, is correct. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. The fact that it was a motor vehicle which was carrying the inflamable oil which ultimately caught fire is OP. Incidental factor and it was not because of use of motor vehicle that the fire took place. The fact that it was a motor vehicle which was carrying the inflamable oil which ultimately caught fire is OP. Incidental factor and it was not because of use of motor vehicle that the fire took place. " ( 5 ) IN the same of similar circumstances, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High court has taken the same view in its judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar Mundi and another vs. Hari Gopql Rao Devasthale and others, AIR 1978 M. P. 29. It was a case in which two trailers were parked on a public lane and one trailer was placed over the other in a tilting position. One minor boy named Manoj Kumar passed by the side of these two trailers and at that time, one of the trailers slipped from the above trailer on which it was placed and fell down on the person of Manoj Kumar with the result that he was seriously injured. The Tribunal declined to entertain the claim petition on the ground that it was not an accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle. The Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal and Observed mat the claim for compensation under section 110 read with section 110-A of the Act would not be maintainable unless the allegation in the application is that the accident involving bodily injury to the applicant arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. The Court further observed that the appellant may be having any other remedy in law for claiming damages on account of negligence, but certainly an application under sec. 110-A of the Act was not the proper remedy to be availed of by the appellants. This was so held because accident occured not because of the use of trailer as motor vehicle but otherwise. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid conclusion, in my opinion, there is no ground for taking a different view than the one taken by a single Judge in Jay a Gauris case referred to above and which has been followed by the Tribunal in returning the claim petition of the petitioner for being presented before the appropriate Court for its adjudication. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition fails. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition fails. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. If the petitioner chooses to take civil action by making an application for excluding time taken for prosecuting these proceedings, the same may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of the Limitation Act. .